devoish (94.80)

Did Mish Try to Mislead Us?

22

CAPS player Dwot, whose posts I never skip, linked to this article by Mish Shedlock who is a "registered investment advisor for SitkaPacific Capital Management".

In his article Mish suggests that Nobel Prize winning Economist, Paul Krugman was in favor of Greenspan's policy of inflating the housing bubble post 9/11, and therefore is discredited as an economist because of the failure of Greenspan's policy.

Dave in Qatar (Whereaminow) saves us the time of reading Mish's article, but makes sure we get the full extent of Paul Krugman's "blunder" by reposting this quote;

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.- Paul Krugman, 2002

David in Qatar

Being the skeptical person that I am,I recently became concerned about Mish's writings when he posted about Maryland millionaires leaving Maryland because of increased taxes. I don't think they left the land of Maryland. I think they left the land of Millionaires because of decreased home and 401k values and they are just not Millionaires anymore.

In his post about Krugman, Mish supplies this Krugman quote from 2002, a little more than what David offered us and also highlighting the part David made sure we did not miss.

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a "double dip," a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Despite the bad news, most commentators, like Mr. Greenspan, remain optimistic. Should you be reassured?

Now I don't think that Mish accurately represents Paul Krugman's views on Alan Greenspan's policy. Neither do I think David does. In fact I think Paul Krugman is being blatantly misrepresented here.

In the past I have encouraged you all to read President Obama's entire campaign speeches rather than rely on the descriptions of those who would "drown America in a bath tub" if they could make her small enough.

In the very same article that Mish pulled his quotes from, Krugman also wrote these additional lines,

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

On the surface, the sharp drop in the economy's growth, from 5 percent in the first quarter to 1 percent in the second, is disheartening. Under the surface, it's quite a lot worse. Even in the first quarter, investment and consumer spending were sluggish; most of the growth came as businesses stopped running down their inventories. In the second quarter, inventories were the whole story: final demand actually fell. And lately straws in the wind that often give advance warning of changes in official statistics, like mall traffic, have been blowing the wrong way.

Despite the bad news, most commentators, like Mr. Greenspan, remain optimistic. Should you be reassured?

Bear in mind that business forecasters are under enormous pressure to be cheerleaders: ''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com. We should never forget that Wall Street basically represents the sell side.

Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

That is the end of the 2002 NY Times article wherein Krugman certainly was not supporting Greenspan's attempt to inflate the housing bubble, regardless of Mish's assertions otherwise.

If you are like me and believe that Mish was trying to misrepresent Krugman, then like me, ask yourself why.

And rather than answer that question for you, I encourage you to actually read Paul Krugman's column or weblog, and read for yourself what he writes, and what he supports, that Mish might not.

A few weeks ago Krugman said we have a ways to go before any recovery.....a few days ago....Krugman called for the recession to end by September.....

Pick which Krugman you want to listen to.....in the end I am sure he will take credit for calling it right.

Let's make things clear....Alstry is calling for the most severe depression in American history.....and it is exactly what the Doctor called for in order to prevent us from initiating a World War of historic proportions.

You think the rest of the world is going to sit idly by as we debase our currency and steal their savings just to offer trillions in welfare to our unemployed citzens???

Prepare.....the republic is at stake.....and it is a high stakes game indeed.

Exacty who would we be going to war with and why the hell would we initiate it?

EXCELLENT QUESTION!!!!

How about every major country in the world that hold dollar demoninated assets!!!!!

That is most of them!!!!!

You think foreign nations are going to let us VOLUNTARILY debase our currency after entrusting the dollar as the world's reserve currency?? We were the reserve currency because the world trusted it.....you break the world's trust......and you are f*^ked!!!

Would you let someone come into your home and steal most of your house without doing something about it???

As a poker player, I can tell you with great confidence that this is the highest stakes game I have ever witnessed....and I have seen a few.

If we do......prepare for WAR!!!!! and we will be alone....or almost alone!!!!

Krugman was right about Greenspan's strategy in 2002, which is useful to the reader. It's not as though he had skin in that game. Or are you going to say that predicting a housing bubble in 2002 didn't reveal a cogent grasp of the facts?

A few weeks ago Krugman said we have a ways to go before any recovery.....a few days ago....Krugman called for the recession to end by September.....

Pick which Krugman you want to listen to.....in the end I am sure he will take credit for calling it right.

Is this a test? The words recession and recovery are not interchangable and by definition will certainly happen on different time frames. First the receeding stops, and then the recovery begins, if it does. As long as you call a recovery to happen second, you'll be right.

Kaskoosek,

What about Mish? Did he misrepresent Krugman?

Schmako,

I do not discount Alstry. Like many people here I do not enjoy his egotism, but, his scenario is plausible. Many people believe we went to war for oil. Governments have gone to war for food, women, land, many reasons. Populations have rebelled, in Iran they are rioting, not for gold, or money, but for Democracy and the vote.

Here in America we need to call our representatives more often than lobbyists do.

I've read it like 10 times now and don't see how exactly Mish is misrepresenting Krugman. It sure looks like Krugman's saying "creating household spending is what Greenspan needs, but I (Krugman) don't think he can do it." In the paragraph in question he also says "to create household spending, we need the price of housing to go up....replace the nasdaq bubble with a housing one." You're confusing the point to some extent. Krugman is only against the idea insofar as he does not believe Greenspan will be able to do it. He's in favor of the principle.

Secondly, although Mish despises Krugman's economics, he's not going to deliberately mislead people about the guy. In fact, he's said quite a few times that what frustrates him so much about Krugman is that he often has spot-on analysis. I don't understand the point of trying to make anything seem underhanded here. If Mish is wrong about the quote then he's wrong. There's no sinister plot.

But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

That's pretty clearly saying "I don't think Greenspan should be optimistic about his attemp to increase spending" and NOT "I think Greenspan shouldn't be trying to increase spending". Krugman is all about trying to increase spending to get out of a slump and if you read him, you know that. The whole article is Krugman telling us that there's no way to get people to spend not that people spending is a bad idea.

In fact, Krugman's wrong on two counts here. First: Greenspan was able to reinflate the economy after the Nasdaq bubble which he's saying couldn't work. Second, that blowing up a consumer spending bubble is the way to recover from recessions.

That should be enough for now. I think it's rather obvious that no one is trying to misrepresent Krugman. However, I do now that devoish has tried to misrepresent me on several occasions. Tactics. No matter. I'm still too laid back from vacation to get all worked up about it.

Krugman is known for excellent analysis, it is his conclusions that are sometimes questionable. I read his economics book, it is really excellent in terms of the analysis. But I think his political beleifs often interefere with his conclusions.

But I think his political beleifs often interefere with his conclusions.

Russian,

I think that is exactly what has happened to Mish. I think it is political beliefs that caused him to just accept that millionaires "moved" from Maryland. I think it is political beliefs that caused him to represent Krugman as having promoted inflating a bubble.

SirCharms,

That's pretty clearly saying "I don't think Greenspan should be optimistic about his attemp to increase spending" and NOT "I think Greenspan shouldn't be trying to increase spending".

It is also NOT saying 'I hope it works because it is a great idea' as though Krugman was in favor of it, as Mish suggests, is it?

Krugman is all about trying to increase spending to get out of a slump and if you read him, you know that. The whole article is Krugman telling us that there's no way to get people to spend not that people spending is a bad idea.

Being in favor of spending to "get out of a slump" is also not the same as being in favor of spending to "inflate a bubble" as Mish suggests either.

In fact, Krugman's wrong on two counts here. First: Greenspan was able to reinflate the economy after the Nasdaq bubble which he's saying couldn't work.

Actually Krugman was correct. Low interest rates did not reinflate housing. There were still no "qualified" borrowers left. What reinflated the bubble was no document lending, no down payment lending, interest only loans, downpayment assistance from the American Dream Downpayment Act, cheats reselling those loans as Federally guaranteed when they were not, AIG guaranteeing those loans with no money to do so, and lazy/incompetent/complicit (you pick your adjective) ratings agencys not bothering to check if those guarantees were any good and issuing AAA ratings on loans that are now junk only 2 years later.

Second, that blowing up a consumer spending bubble is the way to recover from recessions.

Actually, he didn't say that did he? In fact what he said seems to suggest he understood that slumps are not recessions, that the 2001 recession was not causd by high interest rates it would not be corrected by low ones.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance

And Krugman was correct, unless you choose to ignore everything that happened to lending besides Greenspan's low rates.

Ah, but everything that happened with lending was a direct consequence of artificially low rates. With "real" interest rates, we never see the kind of no-doc liar loans get started, much less blow up to the proportions they were. Name something with lending that at root was not caused by low interest rates. There may be a few things, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

You are attempting to deflect the blame away from the cause by blaming the consequence. It sounds and looks good, until you think things through.

I just re-read both articles/blogs mentioned. This really seems like a non-argument argument. Yes, Krugman does seem to be saying that a policy of creating a housing bubble would prevent a double dip recession. He didn't really seem to make a concerted effort to make a value judgement of the policy, besides saying that Greenspan would fail at the effort, but that if he succeeded it would have the intended effect.

Where is the problem here? Everything here is true and right, except Krugman was wrong and Greenspan was able to inflate a housing bubble. This housing bubble had exactly the intended effect. It kept the economy moving forward and gave appearances of GDP growth. Perhaps Mish was being moderately dishonest by attributing support for the plan to Krugman, when he never really comes out and directly states support for it. But frankly, by writing the story and mentioning the possibility without saying it was a really bad idea is giving tacit approval. Plus, given Krugmans historical support of fiat currency manipulation, it is a logical conclusion.

"Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened."

Which is pretty much what Devoish said, and a plain honest reading of the piece would make obvious. Really sad this is generating any controversy.

It just shows, interpreting wrparks's closing remarks in a way they were probably not intended to be, that if you have prejudged Krugman negatively that are more likely to read anything he writes through that filter.

We all read/interpret things through the filters of our experiences. I admit to a distrust of Krugman on many issues, since I have seen in his writings a clear desire to abscond all responsiblity for our fiscal crisis from the democrats and blame the republicans solely. He seems to think the ills of the world can be laid at the feet of G.W. Bush. While he was a failure and a moron, we are witness to the systemic ills that have poisoned our economy for the last 20 (30?) years, and he was only in charge for 8. While I agree the republicans can share a load of the blame, the democrats never seemed better and are most certaily also to blame.

Unfortunately, any partisan such as Krugman will be read in an equally partisan manner by those looking for something to criticize. That was the risk he took when he quit writing economic columns and began writing political columns with an economic slant.

Ah, but everything that happened with lending was a direct consequence of artificially low rates. With "real" interest rates, we never see the kind of no-doc liar loans get started, much less blow up to the proportions they were

Interesting statement. Rates have been "artificially" set since the FED has existed, no? There have been periods of artificially low rates before, but the ninja/etc lending did not happen ever before. We are in a period of artificially low rates again, but no ninja/etc loans this time either.

In the 2002/3 time period "artificially" low rates failed to reinflate the housing bubble as Krugman predicted. So reckless lending stepped in instead, taking advantage of lax consumer protections, probable collusion between investment bankers and ratings agencys, and a laissez faire regulatory attitude.

Had the low interest rates worked to reinflate the lending/housing bubble the profits for the financial players would have been there, as in the past, and the reckless lending would likely have never happened.

I suppose it is fair to say that low rates were a neccessary step on the way to the reckless lending, but I would not go so far as to say "direct consequence".

"Direct consequence" is more applicable to the regulatory atmosphere."

I don't think so. By it's nature, regulation is always reactive and not proactive. Very seldom has a regulation been implemented to prevent something that has not ever happened. So, saying that they didn't regulate something they didn't understand was dangerous seems disengenous. The only thing financial deregulation did was shrink the number of banks who failed from dozens of mid-sized (by todays standards) banks to just a few super large mega banks. But, the net effect would have still be been a market collapse since the bubble would have still occured. It is possible with more mid-size banks, some would have realized the risks and not participated, but I doubt it.

Plus, with government, nothing passes until it reaches the threshold of having major consequences for some large group. Regulation of CDS and other financial WMD's would have never passed congress without some kind of market blowup caused by them. It sucks, but it's true.

Look, very low interest rates were a requirement for the liar and no doc loans. Hence, the entire crisis is a direct consequence of those rates. Sure, it took a cascade of events for the crisis to occur, but it was still caused primarily by the trigger of low rates. This may not always be true. We may one day enter a period where these loans would be made even without very low rates, but this was not it.

Do you blame gunpowder for gun deaths, or do you blame the person who pulled the trigger?

" Rates have been "artificially" set since the FED has existed, no?"

And this could be a good argument that the FED has done a reasonably good job in the past. That doesn't mean they didn't slip up this time.

@wrparks - read his nytimes blog, not his column which has to be edited and has space constraints. Also, I wouldn't presume to speak for him, but I don't think he blames Republicans so much as he blames the conservative economics school of thought (Lafferesque taxation, deregulation,etc). He has really given it to Obama and Geithner, lately, too. Obviously, you can disagree w/ his viewpoint, but I think the partisan/inconsistent attacks on him are weak and generally delivered by people w/ vested interests in diminishing his standing, and are intended to let people dismiss his arguments instead of having to counter them.

Take a look at a map of the Himalayas, and the rivers that come out of them that supply water to China and India. Then consider what happens if the two countries cannot divide the water peacably, and the glaciers melt.Also think about Burma and Bangladesh and Thailand and all their water comes from China also.

Think about the USA and Mexico arguing over the Rio Grand, and whether or not groundwater pumping on either side of the border is drying it up.

Personally I see this as ambiguous at best. I don't see this as a ringing endorsement from creating the housing bubble, but I can see it being interpreted as somewhat condoning it. I'm willing to give Krugman the benefit of the doubt on this one and say he probably felt the idea wasn't realistic and didn't deserve further debate. That said Krugman tends to waffle a lot on his analysis and tends to inject a lot of his personal politics into his analysis. TBP has a good example of it here. Like it or not such a practice will draw a lot of ire from people and to a degree could be considered intellectually dishonest.

I don't see Mish as really misrepresenting what was written here either, one could infer that he condones such a policy by not renouncing it too. Perhaps there's a bit of irony here where Mish is seeing what he wants to here and likewise so are you devoish.

I'll admit, I've never really read his blog much. I'll add it to my list of other blogs to read...... His columns, when I have read them anyway, always just seemed like another partisan rant about why republicans are satan and had very little critical analysis. I have no problem with that, since I have no love of the republican party. But, he always seemed a bit ......... too partisan?

Devoish, yea, I think we pretty much do agree on this one. As you say though, enforcement is always an issue with this kind of thing. Had the ratings agencies done their legally bound due diligence, this never would have happened, since these things would have been rated as junk securities. Regulation is only as good as the enforcement, and I would love to have seen somebody go after the ratings agencies for fraud. That, to me, would be a much bigger deterrent to the next problem than new regulation.

Water will be the excuse. Their will be a trade war first. Mexico will not start it, the US will. To stop them from "stealing" river water through nearby underground wells. It may not be more than sending in a force and destroying the wells.